RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00881
            INDEX CODE:  111.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR)  rendered  for  the  period  16 August
1996 through 30 May 1997, dated July 1997, be removed from his  records  and
replaced with the report covering the same period dated 2 June 1997.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The original EPR endorsed on 2 June 1997, by  the  rater,  and  the  rater’s
rater was lost.  The report was forwarded for senior rater  endorsement  and
signed, dated 14 June 1997.  Approximately 4  months  after  he  arrived  at
Ramstein, he reviewed his records and found a reaccomplished EPR  (contested
report) endorsed 11 July 1997.  This EPR  was  closed  out  at  the  rater’s
rater level and endorsed by a lieutenant colonel.   The  reaccomplished  EPR
should be removed from his record and replaced with the initial  EPR  signed
and dated 2 June 1997,  which  accurately  reflected  his  duty  performance
during the period in question.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade  of
master sergeant.

The  applicant  appealed  the  contested  report  three  times   under   the
provisions of AFI 36-2401 and the appeals were considered and denied by  the
Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB).

EPR profile since 1993 reflects the following:

          PERIOD ENDING      OVERALL EVALUATION

             1 Oct 93                    5
             1 Oct 94                    5
             1 Oct 95                    5
                15 Aug 96                    5
          * 30 May 97                    5
            30 May 98                    5
                28 Feb 99                5

     *  Contested report.

EVALUATION:

The Chief, Inquiries, AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military  Testing
Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the  first
time the report was considered in the promotion process was  cycle  98E8  to
senior master sergeant (promotions effective Apr 98 – Mar 99).   Should  the
AFBCMR grant his request, providing the applicant is otherwise eligible,  he
will be entitled to  supplemental  promotion  consideration  beginning  with
cycle 98E8.  They defer to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPPAB.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Director of Personnel Program  Management,  AFPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  this
application and states that the evaluators from the reporting chain  believe
the report should be replaced.  However, none  of  the  evaluators  indicate
they now have information not available when the report  was  rendered  that
would substantiate  the  applicant’s  EPR  as  being  unjust.   The  appeals
process  does  not  exist  to  recreate  history  or  enhance  chances   for
promotion.  Additionally, there is no support from the senior  rater.   They
do not know if he is aware that the report he signed on 14 June 1997 is  not
a matter of record.  They have no way of knowing  whether  he  was  involved
with the revised EPR and/or supported the change.  They also note  that  the
30 May 1997 EPR in the applicant’s selection record  is  technically  flawed
as the rater’s rater did not initial in the signature block of  Section  VII
(indorser’s comments), which was  not  used.   However,  since  the  rater’s
rater mentions in his letter that he decided not to  forward  the  redrafted
EPR for senior rater indorsement and he has since retired, they  accept  the
EPR without his initials as an exception to policy.   Given  the  number  of
questions generated from the lack of evidence provided with his  case,  they
sent the attached letter to the applicant on 24 June 1999 to  ascertain  the
answers to the  above  questions.   Unfortunately,  they  never  received  a
response  from  the  applicant.   Therefore,  they   recommend   denial   of
applicant’s request.

A complete copy  of  their  evaluation,  with  attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit D.




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 24 September 1999, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded  to
the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As of this  date,  no
response has been received by this office.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law  or
regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the  evidence  of
record, we are convinced that  the  EPR  for  the  period  in  question  was
prepared and signed by the rater on 2 June 1997.  However, it  appears  that
this EPR was lost and  a  reaccomplished  report  was  submitted.   In  this
regard, we note the statements submitted by  the  rater  and  rater’s  rater
indicating that the  original  report  was  misplaced  and  that  since  the
original report has been found, it should replace the reaccomplished  report
that is now in the applicant’s record.  We agree.  Since the  misplacing  of
the original report was of no fault of the applicant  and  in  view  of  the
statements provided, we recommend that the EPR rendered for  the  period  16
August 1996 through 30 May 1997, signed by the rater  on  2  June  1997,  be
placed  in  applicant’s  records.   In  addition,  he  should  be   provided
supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master  sergeant
beginning with promotion cycle 98E8.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

        a.  The Enlisted Performance Report, Air Force  Form  911,  rendered
for the period 16 August 1996 through 30 May 1997, signed by  the  rater  on
11 July 1997, be, and hereby is, declared void removed from his records.

        b.  The attached Enlisted Performance Report, Air  Force  Form  911,
rendered for the period 16 August 1996 through 30 May 1997,  signed  by  the
rater on 2 June 1997, be, and hereby  is,  placed  in  his  records  in  its
proper sequence.

It  is  further  recommended  that  applicant   be   provided   supplemental
consideration  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  senior  master   sergeant
beginning with cycle 98E8.

If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent  to  supplemental
consideration that are separate and  apart,  and  unrelated  to  the  issues
involved in  this  application,  that  would  have  rendered  the  applicant
ineligible for the  promotion,  such  information  will  be  documented  and
presented to the  board  for  a  final  determination  on  the  individual’s
qualification for the promotion.

If  supplemental  promotion  consideration  results  in  the  selection  for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the  records
shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade  on  the
date of rank established by  the  supplemental  promotion  and  that  he  is
entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits  of  such  grade  as  of  that
date.

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 3 February 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
            Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
            Mr. Mike Novel, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Apr 99.
       Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 9 Sep 99, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 24 Sep 99.




                 DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                 Panel Chair

AFBCMR 99-00881





MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to applicant be corrected to show that:

             a.  The Enlisted Performance Report, Air Force Form 911,
rendered for the period 16 August 1996 through 30 May 1997, signed by the
rater on 11 July 1997, be, and hereby is, declared void removed from his
records.

             b.  The attached Enlisted Performance Report, Air Force Form
911, rendered for the period 16 August 1996 through 30 May 1997, signed by
the rater on 2 June 1997, be, and hereby is, placed in his records in its
proper sequence.

      It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration
for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant beginning with cycle
98E8.

      If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to
the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the
applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented
and presented to the board for a final determination on the individual's
qualification for the promotion.

      If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records
shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the
date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that she is
entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that
date.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency
Attachment:
AF Form 911